if we 'free-up' our minds to think wider than our conventional sciences
based 'unconventionality' (as applied on this list frequently) and recognize
the unlimited Everything in the complexity of the wholeness we end up in
We know only part of the total, visualize WITHIN our mind-restricted imaging
and formulate 'models' of the already known world (already: because it
widened by newer input historically as we 'learn'). The totality's inter
influenceing results in changing relations - partly followable -
acknowledged by the part of our 'then' knowledge.
In such view "Random" is "I don't know", Chaos is: "I don't know" and
stochastic is sort of a random. What conventional science does is a
compromise into the "almost": our technology is "almost perfect", some
planes fall off from the sky, some sicknesses/wars break out, some genetic
mishaps occur, some theories fail, etc. etc. Compromising means to invent
cute factors that enhance a match (at least mathematically) in cases of
trouble. Presumptions make assumptions and vice versa, in endless series and
at the end it is believed as a fact.
Deterministic? there is SOME order that keeps the world churning, applying
ALL relational changes in the wholeness including ALL ingredients of the
Everything. We don't know what
are such 'ingredients' only the imagined 'model-substitutions' we use in our
We don't know what kind of alterations the relations in the unlimited
totality may undergo, we
only experience SOME and interpret them within our figment (physical world).
and now I use this word as well <G> - there is an order in the wholeness and
this encompasses all the totality in the alterations of the relationships -
so I feel justified to use
the word 'deterministic'. Not to "understand" it, though. In limbo - you
say: be my guest.
We cannot overstep our capabilities and think only within our models. By
human logic, which has no claim to be the general characteristic of nature
(the totality). We think human. Me, too.
A bit stepping further seems to be allowed in 'anticipation' what I just
study how to get to it,
on the bases of Robert Rosen and Mihai Nadin. I am not there yet.
Rules, mathematical formula, quantum science, physics, other conventional
figments of the human mind how to explain the partial phenomena we
'accepted' over the time of our existence here on Earth.
One more obstacle: users of different vocabularies cannot effectively argue
with each other,
the meaning of the words is different. Bruno has a vocabulary, conventional
sciences use another one, my concepts are differently identified, religions
have their own versions, every
one understands arguments within their own vocabulary - the rest is
n Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 11:33 AM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 20, 8:53 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > IZ wrote:
> > *"Even stochastic rules? Science can easily explain how the appearance
> > of order emerges from randomness"*.
> > 'Stochastic is no more than not assignable to our KNOWN rules of choice.
> It's still rules. If there are no known rules BECAUSE the actual rules
> "out there"
> are not deterministic, science can still function with the sort of
> rules it still
> functions with. In you previous comment, ou sounded like you were
> deriving the conclusion "everything
> is deterministic" from the premise "science works on rules", and that
> does not
> in fact follow. Now you seem to be deriving "everything is
> deterministic" from itself.
> > This is a natural outcome within the view I discribed.
> > And the 'order' tha '*emerges'* from randomness? maybe it is only a
> > mathematical formula - just describing the experience,
> Maybe a deterministic law "is just a mathematical formula". The point
> whether we should have respect for the fact that these things work,
> and whether we should do so in a biased or an even-handed way.
> The determinist is impressed by Newton's deterministic laws,and happy
> to reify them,
> but not by the Law of Large Numbers, which shows how apparent
> order can emerge from chaos. Yet both work. So it looks like
> the determinist is running on bias.
> > *or *- by additional
> > input - the missing part that 'made' the "randomness" in the first place,
> > dissipates by our knowledge being expanded (enriched).
> > I appreciate ONE true randomness (in math): "Take ANY number..."
> > On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 19, 9:39 pm, John Mikes <jami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > *Brent wrote:*
> > > > **
> > > > *"I would point out that "indeterminism" can have two different
> > > > One is internal, due to the occasional quantum random event that gets
> > > > amplified to quasi-classical action. The other, much more common, is
> > > > unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic) external event that
> > > influences
> > > > one through perception. I don't think this affects the above
> > > > except to qualify the idea that external indeterminism is justly
> > > considered
> > > > enslavement*."
> > > > An enlightened Hungarian king wrote a royal order in the 13th c.
> > > > Coloman, the bookworm) "De Strigiis quae non sunt..." i.e. "About the
> > > > sorcerers that do NOT exist..." - yet 1/2 millennium later they
> > > burnt
> > > > witches the World over. So is it with the ominous
> > > > Fre-Will, and many more atavistically developed meme-stuff.
> Especially in
> > > > the theocratic religion chapters, but conventional science not
> > > > either. As much as I like Brent's remark, I point out the
> > > > science) figment of the Physical World and its domains like a
> > > > random event' - which would make all our 'ordered' world (view)
> > > irrelevant
> > > > and haphazardously changing, instead of following those 'oganized'
> > > physics-
> > > > (and other scientific)- rules we 'beleive in" and apply.
> > > Even stochastic rules? Science can easily explain how the appearance
> > > of
> > > order emerges from randomness.
> > > Even Brent's
> > > > "quasi-classical action" is part of our scientific figment. Those
> > > "possibly
> > > > deterministic" EXTERNAL events are within our 'model' of the so far
> > > > part we carry (in pesonalized adjustment) in our 'mind' - outside
> > > SELF
> > > > in our mini-solipsism. Part of our *perceived reality.*
> > > > I like* * "*the unpredictable (but possibly determinisitic)*'
> > > distinction
> > > > as pointing to the influences upon (our known) topics WITHIN the
> > > > model of our perceived reality by the 'beyond model' infinite
> > > of
> > > > the everything. We have no way to learn what that infinite rest of
> > > world
> > > > may be, yet it influences the part we got access to so it is
> > > deterministic
> > > > in our indeterministic - unpredictable world.
> > > > "Enslavement" is a term I would be careful to use in such discussion
> > > because
> > > > of its historic - societal general meaning. We - in my opinion - are
> > > > slaves in the unlimited everything: we are part of it.Embedded into
> > > > influenced by all of it.
> > > > We just do not see beyond our limitations - my agnosticism.
> > > --
> > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > > "Everything List" group.
> > > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > > For more options, visit this group at
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at